[trhway]

it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.

[ericmay]

> it isn't trade-off.

Yes it is.

> You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech.

No I'm not.

~~~~~~

There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.

[mindslight]

> There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.

You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation.

That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.

[pibaker]

Are you a Russian bot seeking to destroy free speech, one of the foundations of Western democracy and civilization? How are we supposed to know?

Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet.

[EMIRELADERO]

> Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.

Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.

[trhway]

The chilling effect you’re supporting leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.